From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 05:05:16 MDT
Thank you very much for this Kharin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kharin" <hidden@lucifer.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Re:virus: Gauging political affiliation [was: howdy]
>
> Note: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ has an interesting methodology for
gauging political affiliation (in case there was any doubt, I come out as
very slightly inclining to the right, and strongly inclining towards
libertarianism). But back to the original topic:
>
> [quote] I think for a long time Marx was actually a huge weight around the
necks of socialist campaigners everywhere. [/quote]
>
> Tony Blair certainly thought so. How interesting to find you in agreement
with him.
>
> [quote]I\'m sure
> Jesus (if he existed) would be appaled(sic) at the christian religion if
he was
> around today[/quote]
>
> Given that he did not exist, this is not something we need detain
ourselves with for too long. However, hypothetically speaking, I consider it
unlikely that anyone prepared to speak of coming with a sword to set brother
against brother can really be regarded as a great exponent of liberty and
fraternity.
>
> [quote]
> 30% Socialist
> 30% Libertarian
> 20% Hedonist
> 20% Anarchist
> [/quote]
>
> Of which, numbers one, two and four would all appear to be less than
compatible, i.e. socialism typically assumes the presence of a large state
founded upon interventionist principles, which can conduct redistribution of
wealth via taxation (i.e. the state acts as the guarantor of equality of
incone). Conversely, anarchism typically assumes that all institutions are
inherently debilitating (something they may have a point over in the case of
socialist states). For anarchism, the state corrupts even the most selfless
revolutionary instead of simply \'withering away\' as certain early Marxists
had it. The only thing that both creeds have in common is a view that
capitalism has the effect of commodifying human relationships, which says a
great deal about what they are against, but little regarding what they are
for. Otherwise, the idea that Marx and Bakunin could lay down like the lion
and the lamb seems rather far fetched.
>
> As for socialism and libertarianism, the discrepancy is even more glaring.
Socialism regards the liberty of the citizen as something that is subject to
abuse and an invitation for one citizen to triumph over another; the state
must therefore intervene. Conversely, if libertarianism can be described as
possessing any core tenet (as it can be a very diffuse philosophy) it is
surely that the state may not regard the indvidual as it personal property -
while for Marxism the individual is as nothing - which is how socialism was
able to trample over its peoples wherever it became established. The needs
of the individual were never important, only the imagined needs of the
society, which conveniently happened to be identical to the needs of the
state.
>
> Finally, anarchism and libertariaism are probably the closest of the
three, although libertarianism has certainly been most fully developed in
capitalist liberal democracies wherein the liberty of the citizen is
underpinned by economic rights, and particularly property rights; i.e. those
of the kind that anarchism has always been hostile to (i.e. the view that
liberty of that kind is meaningless without economic equality since it is
only deemed to be available to the moneyed classes). The other problem is
that rights and liberties conflict; for JS Mill or Madison, the state has a
role in contending between these differing interests, while for someone like
Bakunin;
>
> [quote]liberty of each individual which, far from halting as at a boundary
before the liberty of others, finds there its confirmation and its extension
to infinity; the illimitable liberty of each through the liberty of
all[/quote]
>
> Which is ultimately the point at which anarchism and fascism meet, since
in those circumstances chaos assuredly leads to crushing order. All of which
leads me to wonder if most of these philosophies have anything in common
other than a siege mentality regarding to capitalism.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by kharin to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=248
51>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT